...from core figures of the American Right, this time from the recently retired (1992-2008) editor-in-chief of the Republican Party News Organ, the Washington Times.

Quote:

Mr. Obama's revelation of his "inner Muslim" in Cairo reveals much about who he is. He is our first president without an instinctive appreciation of the culture, history, tradition, common law and literature whence America sprang. The genetic imprint writ large in his 43 predecessors is missing from the Obama DNA. He no doubt meant no offense in returning that bust of Churchill ("Who he?") or imagining that a DVD of American movies was appropriate in an exchange of state gifts with Gordon Brown. Nor did he likely understand why it was an offense against history (and good manners) to agree to the exclusion of the Queen from Saturday's commemoration of the Anglo-American liberation of France. Kenya simply routed Kansas.

That someone in such a powerful position could write this -- could have held such a position for so long while holding such attitudes -- and could continue as a powerful and respect grandee of conservatism, suffering few if any social consequences, is a powerful message in itself. Stupid, brutish racism percolates merrily in the central political life of the USA, not least because it is so popular with stupid brutish racists.

He chided the West for its harsh view of Islamic treatment of women - "I reject the view of some in the West that a woman who chooses to cover her hair is somehow less equal" - and suggested that denying education to women is the gravest Muslim sin against women. He could have denounced "honor killings," forced marriages and how women in Muslim countries are flogged on the pretext of minuscule violations of eighth-century Sharia law.

I think the Muslim connection to this is overplayed. The tribal and cultural factors that define women and fertility as property of the patriarch do not have more than partial reflection in Islamic scripture or Sharia Law. Another term for Pruden's 'forced marriages' is arranged marriages, which as strange as that seems in some Western cultures, is still the norm in most of the rest of the world, and not a peculiarity to Muslim nations.

As to Sharia law- yeah. Draconian in general and especially towards women. But Sharia Law found an upsurge in Saudi Arabia, our ally, that monarchy, after the Saud royal family adopted Wahhabist fundamentalist Islam and then funded the resurgence of Wahhabism throughout Sunni-dominant lands, including Pakistan. Saudi Arabia that has had a close relationship with the U.S. for a number of presidencies now, especially Reagan and Bush I and II.

Quote:

Big talkers don't know when to stop when they're on a rhetorical roll because they can't remember which facts are actually facts and which "facts" they're making up.

Yup. Does the same rule apply to your rhetorical character assassination, sir? The sad thing again is there are substantive things to actually criticize the Administration on. But that's alright. You just keep on frothing the racist monologues that continue to define and marginalize the right.

I am not entirely surprised that this guy has the influence he has. It is human nature to hate and fear those labeled as the 'other'. As such, I can see how someone with such deplorable views can garner influence and the power to shape public opinion when there are so many amongst us who think as he does.

As to Sharia law- yeah. Draconian in general and especially towards women. But Sharia Law found an upsurge in Saudi Arabia, our ally, that monarchy, after the Saud royal family adopted Wahhabist fundamentalist Islam and then funded the resurgence of Wahhabism throughout Sunni-dominant lands, including Pakistan. Saudi Arabia that has had a close relationship with the U.S. for a number of presidencies now, especially Reagan and Bush I and II.

Even worse than that: Reagan and Bush did it on purpose to undermine the Arab (nationalist) left.

The Washington Times is owned by the Moonies. It is not taken seriously in general. Mostly because of stuff like this.

I agree, especially if you mean "taken seriously by people of even moderate intelligence and decency". But (i) that doesn't mean it isn't a core element of the American right wing; and (ii)that is very different from its not having a serious effect. The Times has played a significant and effective role in laundering Rovian spin points into the mainstream media over the past 9-10 years in particular. And I say Rovian because I mean the sort of things too crazy, paranoid, violent, racist or plain stupid to be directly presented through (even!) a GOP presser -- the stuff really intended to inflame the hate-base.

The pipeline from the Times to the right-blogs and syndicated columnists to the cable news panels at CNN and MSNBC was a well-organized and successful project for years. Pundits and news readers who would have agreed that they didn't take the Washington Times seriously would end up parroting their spin points (at least in the form of "Questions are being asked about..."), no doubt without even knowing their origins.

Pundits and news readers who would have agreed that they didn't take the Washington Times seriously would end up parroting their spin points (at least in the form of "Questions are being asked about..."), no doubt without even knowing their origins. I've observed the same thing over here with papers like The Sun (Murdoch) and The Daily Mail (Rothermere). Unless my attitude to the veracity of the stories and the wisdom of the opinions I read in my newspaper is profound skepticism, then I do take it seriously.

That is an unfortunate state of affairs. One thing that concerns me is how much influence the right wing has in the media. I happen to think that their greatest bit of propaganda has been in convincing people that the media has a left wing bias. If anything the media tilt is to the right and has been so for decades.

That is an unfortunate state of affairs. One thing that concerns me is how much influence the right wing has in the media. I happen to think that their greatest bit of propaganda has been in convincing people that the media has a left wing bias. If anything the media tilt is to the right and has been so for decades.

Then why do the policies consistently move left?

__________________What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. ... The origin of myths is explained in this way.

ABC News' Jake Tapper and Sunlen Miller report: The other day we heard a comment from a White House aide that never would have been uttered during the primaries or general election campaign.

During a conference call in preparation for President Obama's trip to Cairo, Egypt, where he will address the Muslim world, deputy National Security Adviser for Strategic Communications Denis McDonough said "the President himself experienced Islam on three continents before he was able to -- or before he's been able to visit, really, the heart of the Islamic world -- you know, growing up in Indonesia, having a Muslim father -- obviously Muslim Americans (are) a key part of Illinois and Chicago."

__________________What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. ... The origin of myths is explained in this way.

Hitler's official programme was in many ways to the left of Obama's. Unless one considers nationalizing trusts, confiscating war profits, profit-sharing in industries, increases in old-age pensions, the expansion of state-run education, a proposed ethic of common good before individual good, etc. to be right wing planks. ("Left" and "right" have to be defined for the purposes of discussion or people will often argue in circles and talk past one another.) Hitler, of course, ended up a tool of entrenched elites who wanted mostly the opposite.

You could send people transcripts of Obama speeches and say they had been delivered by Reagan and a great many people would believe you without raising an eyebrow.

I think the Muslim connection to this is overplayed. The tribal and cultural factors that define women and fertility as property of the patriarch do not have more than partial reflection in Islamic scripture or Sharia Law.

I.e., as I've put it, "more pretextual than causal." When it comes to most practices or traditions for which it is blamed (or credited, depending), supernaturalist organized religion is neither a necessary nor sufficient cause. Rather, it has often been invoked as further justification for practices and traditions which had already taken some form. This is true of other breeds of supernaturalism too, not only Islam.

You could send people transcripts of Obama speeches and say they had been delivered by Reagan and a great many people would believe you without raising an eyebrow.

Yes, because the idea of Obama being a "socialist" (or a "socialist muslim") is laughable at best.

There is one way he (or more to the point, the people he works for) could be secretly pro-socialist: under Marxist theory, the erosion of economic safety nets and exacerbation of the contradictions of capitalism could hasten conditions favorable to socialist revolution. I really don't think they're looking at it that way, though! Besides, in the U.S., fascist reaction would probably be more likely to succeed.

Yes, because the idea of Obama being a "socialist" (or a "socialist muslim") is laughable at best.

Newsweek cover: May 6, 2009

Apparently Newsweek is a joke magazine.

__________________What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. ... The origin of myths is explained in this way.

Location of birth is not relevant to natural born status. One can be born overseas and be a natural born citizen of the nation of one's parents.

__________________What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. ... The origin of myths is explained in this way.

Really. I only wish we were Left of Hitler - maybe then our social programs would get a fair nod, rather than constant reductions. How many teachers in the Detroit area alone have lost their jobs this year? How many people are still uninsured? How many working people are still not getting enough food?

Maybe Afghanistan would not now be being re-invaded, but for real this time because we didn't "get it right" last time, and Pakistanis would not be being bombed.

Maybe we'd have a reinstatement of civil rights, and the idea of detaining people indefinitely without trial or access to legal counsel would not be "acceptable".

Please - policy - foreign and domestic - has been moving consistently to the right for decades now - regardless of whether a Dem or Rep has had control - in fact, under the supposedly leftist Dem Party we have seen some of the sharpest lurches to the right. The Dem Party had control of the Congress when Bush was given war powers, Clinton oversaw welfare "reform", and Obama lobbied hard pre-election for TARP and has required massive concessions by labor as a condition for any kind of "help" for the auto industry.

As for leftist media - the NYT - supposed bastion of liberal hoohah was responsible for funneling the White House Line (hey, Scooter Libby, meet Judith miller!) on Iraq to the general public. This was not the first time they'd acted as mouthpiece for the White House, either. They also have a consistent editorial slant against any kind of strike (for example, the New York Transit Workers' strike in 2005 - which had massive public support as demonstrated by the letters run in their very paper), any kind of gain by the workers in general.

It has been for quite some time. "Big Government" is not necessarily a hallmark of socialism. Looking at what the Government actually DOES is a good way to figure out what sort of government it is.

This one:
Makes the cutting of wages and jobs a requirement for "help" for troubled companies
Cuts educational funds ("hard decisions and sacrifices")
Cuts unemployment (over the course of decades)
Cuts access to healthcare (and consults with the insurance industry when "redesigning" health care access)
Wages pre-emptive war
Continues to detain people without pressing charges
Continues to export people for "special interrogation"
Continues to not prosecute war criminals in order to cover its own part in it all